The word "Marriage" is that word
created in the English language to signify a specific type of relationship
between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people
supporting each other through life.

It does not mean anything else.
It doesn't mean a relationship between a pig and a duck. It does not mean a
relationship between a horse and a moose. It doesn't mean a relationship between
a man and another man. It doesn't mean a relationship between a woman and
another woman. It is a simple matter of definition.

The LGBT
community wants to change the definition of this word. And they do it through
telling people who want it to continue to mean the same thing that they are
"hateful" or "bigoted." What is hateful about believing that
a word has a certain meaning?

Exactly! Marriage is being attacked. Gays don't want what marriage really is,
they want to change it to fit them. Unwittingly or divisively, this directly
affects natural families and their rights.

I don't care if Gays have
unions, but to accept the lie that those unions are comparable to the union
between man and woman (the basic unit set up where all children should have a
right to be born into and raised up in), is damaging to families and societies.
This article very well points out directly some causes and effects of accepting
the selfish view of Gays, to the detriment of upholding better familial
practices for society as a whole.

Dear Mrs. Maggie Gallagher,You say unstable families are contributing to
high crime and other social ills and yet you criticize Europe for it's small
family size when it has fewer of the very social ills (such as crime) you insist
'strong' families prevent. I have lived in an western european country and
while they do have smaller families I can also say they put their families above
anything else in their life. I also fail to see how falling populations is a
tragedy-I think in a world with limited resources that is probably beneficial
and I think it's better for society that those who are uninterested in
child-rearing not feel compelled to do so.As for same-sex marriage I see
no reason why it should have any less legitimacy than adoption. Yes, it is
ideal when the father and mother can raise their biological child but we don't
live in an ideal world-a world where not all children can stay with their
biological parents and not all parents have the innate heterosexual attraction
that would make that union a happy one.

Uncle Charles: "No logically thinking individual can say with a straight
face that homosexuality is nothing more than a chosen behavior."

Are you calling the LDS church ill-logical? They admit that same sex
attraction (homosexuality) is not chosen. Do you want to stick with that line
or are you willing to learn (like the LDS church did that there are those who
did not choose this attraction?

michaelitos: ". Homosexual marriage is a huge socio-political-cultural
change that affects society as a whole."

Support your statement.
Show me how much Massachusetts has changed since they adopted gay marriage in
2004. Point out how a member of the LDS church - or any church has had their
beliefs changed, has had such a cultural change that it compromises their
integrity or makes them question their own marriages and the sanctity of the
vows that they took. Can you show me one couple that has decided not to marry
because gays can also marry?

"We claim the priviledge of worshipping the
Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience. We allow all men
that same priviledge; let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Our personal beliefs on what makes a sin a sin should not be part of
this argument, because not everyone shares these beliefs. The church itself,
according to the above AOF, states that we allow all people to believe whatever
they want. What, then, gives us the right to dictate who is allowed to marry
who, just based on what we believe to be sinful?

The word "Marriage" is that word created in the
English language to signify a specific type of relationship between a man and a
woman, and conveys certain expectations of those two people supporting each
other through life.

------------------

Is that what the
marriage of two companies means? I didn't realize... Or how about the marriage
of a good wine and cheese? All these phrases are used within the English
language to signify the uniting of two entities.

And why shouldn't
gays marry? They two are asking the state to recognize their expectations of
supporting each other through life. They are asking the state to grant them the
same leagl status that any other couple of Aerican citizens are presented with
when they receive their marriage certificate.

Is it that you think
they are not good enough or righteous enough to have the same privileges and
benefits that you enjoy? What is your legal reason for denying them the same
citizenship that you enjoy?

You know what makes me sick. I'll tell ya'll what makes me sick. It's stuff
like this. Like it or not Utah, this is my view. Let's start now with Michael
De Groote, Deseret News - title - "Gay marriage and reshaping
society." OK PEOPLE, "Wake up America". Why are we
"American's living in a Country "without any laws" all around
anarchists"?. What's Congress and State law makers doing to cause this?.
Even these Anarchists in central Russia were either imprisoned, driven
underground or joined the victorious Bolsheviks, the anarchists from Petrograd
and Moscow fled to the Ukraine. Who in OUR GOVERNMENT is putting a stranglehold
on political freedoms we always known?. Are ya'll tired yet of these person's
who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power, who
believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy, especially one who
uses violent means to overthrow the established order of The United States of
America?. Do you want to give up YOUR Holy Bible for the Anarchist Cookbook?.
How about The Book Of Mormon also, seeing Utah is the Mormon State?. It's time
to "WAKE UP AMERICA", and, do something about it.

sjgf at 9:55 a.m. April 21, 2011 said,"The word "Marriage"
is that word created in the English language to signify a specific type of
relationship between a man and a woman, and conveys certain expectations of
those two people supporting each other through life."

By this
same criteria I think we would have to condemn our Mormon forefathers for their
practice of polygamy. For most of the nation (in the 1800s or now), the word
"marriage" is not defined in terms of multiple spouses at a time for
one person. Any time we try to argue the definition or original purpose of
"marriage", we argue against the eternal doctrine established in
Doctrine and Covenants 132.

In addition, you seem to have an
unstated major premise, that a definition (in this case the definition of
"marriage") may not change. Why not? What prevents society from
changing the definition of a word? I'm reminded that the word "gay"
did not even connote the idea of homosexuality. Now it seems homosexuality is
the first thing thought of with the word "gay".

However, I do this because I want to hold my girlfriends hand, NOT because I
want everyone to know I am straight."--Whatever makes you think
that if I hold my partner's hand in public it is because I want everyont to know
that I'm gay and that I'm not doing it just because I want to hold his hand?

It seems that it's okay for you because it's what you "want"
to do, but if I "want" to do it, I'm shoving my gayness in your
face.

@Zack Tacorin: Stop with being logical; it will only bring on more illogical
comments, lol! Have you read these posts? For instance, "gays want the
world to know they are gay, and wear pink shorts to the gym," paraphrasing,
of course. I personally am friends with many gays who are the exact opposite of
what that particular poster has said. Would you most likely know they are gay?
Yes. Do they kiss and hug and make a scene? No. Blanket statements are
hilarious. I'll bet the poster has even had contact or been friends with
someone who is gay and not even known it.

"If you want to know how same-sex marriage is going to affect traditional
believers, mainstream Christians and other faith communities, ask yourself how
do we treat racists who are opposed to interracial marriage in the public
square."

It won't matter if the laws are changed or not Mrs.
Gallagher, I already view people like you the same way I view racists and other
participants in harmful discrimination. The laws aren't what changed the way
racists are viewed, rather the way racists are viewed is what changed the laws.
We are seeing a similar change happening now around the world with regard to
sexual orientation. Thank goodness.

I forgot to clarify earlier that I disagree with most of what Maggie Gallagher
has to say, generally and specifically. I am in favor of gay marriage not only
on moral grounds, but on legal grounds as well.

"But a gay marriage doesn't produce
children to be abandoned-heterosexual relationships do. Please explain how this
relates to gay marriage?"

If we redefine marriage in lots of
different ways, we weaken the institution. That increases out of wedlock
births. We live in a society where fathers don't recognize that they have a
responsibility for their children. Indeed, they may not even know they have
children. They've moved on.

@Rockon: "Gay" is a learned behavior? Please reference any peer
reviewed real scientific evidence to back up your claim, otherwise we should all
dismiss it as your biased opinion based on your world view... or in other words
your "learned behavior." Sans proof I congratulate you for having an
opinion, just like Ms. Gallagher.

If sexuality is a choice, please
describe the day you woke up and declared yourself Heterosexual. I'm hetero
myself, yet I can't recall making that choice. What's also funny is that I keep
hearing from the Pious (aka the leadership of the LDS Church in particular) that
we should "resist our NATURAL urges" in reference to sexual behaviors
(usually premarital, or when speaking of "self abuse" etc.). Natural
urges? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of your argument that our sexuality
is a choice? Am I to believe that as I progressed through adolescence that my
sexual urges were really just a choice, and not "natural"?